Single payer is the way to go and it's constitutional. If they strike this down the dems need to get to work on single payer. If the Republicans want the "more constitutional" way of addressing the problem, then they can have it.

OK so we go single payer hypothetically. Here's my questions:

1) Will that automatically result in a pushing out of the marketplace of all private insurers?

2) If yes, doesn't that mean ipso facto that all healthy care providers become de facto government employees if the only financial recourse they have for their services is to petition the government for payment?

To take it a step further, let's say we go single payer. Does the government not then have a significant interest in lowering health care costs since all costs would be paid by the taxpayer under threat of imprisonment for failure to pay? If that's the situation, does the government then have the authority to dictate, say, dietary restrictions or limit food choices available to the public in the name of future cost control?

To take it a step further, let's say we go single payer. Does the government not then have a significant interest in lowering health care costs since all costs would be paid by the taxpayer under threat of imprisonment for failure to pay? If that's the situation, does the government then have the authority to dictate, say, dietary restrictions or limit food choices available to the public in the name of future cost control?

Government already does this through the FDA.

And, we already have a huge swath of the population in government-run health insurance - medicare. Has the government dictated diet or limited food choices? Seems like a red herring, and not the food choice.

And, we already have a huge swath of the population in government-run health insurance - medicare. Has the government dictated diet or limited food choices? Seems like a red herring, and not the food choice.

I don't think the government regulates through the FDA like you are thinking, depeche -- sure they won't let poisonous food on the market, but where do you draw the line when its poisonous food versus food that, if eaten in excess, can lead to a litany of health problems down the round? I understand that there is a large portion of the population on government run health insurance currently (which is a whole other subject in terms of the ability of the governmental bureaucracy to monitor and eliminate fraud in the Medicare program) -- but that's a far cry from a universal program where every single person in the country is covered. I mean if the justification if economic in nature, then doesn't the government then have the right to issue regulations in terms of managing the health insurance program? What's to stop the government then from extending that authority?

Imagine how large of a monster bureaucracy Medicare is right now and all the problems with it -- costs running out of control, fraud, waste, corruption, etc. Do we really want to expand that and let the government manage this? If the government becomes the health insurer, doesn't the government then have to create a panel of people who will determine whether or not a proposed treatment is medically necessary? Do we want government bureaucrats making those decisions?

A quick google search (your results may vary) shows Medicare and Medicaid, according to Kaiser, are used by approximately 100 million people, with that number sure to increase as the Baby Boomers age. And now we are going to expand the size and scope of that program threefold to cover the entire populace?

The difference is that anyone can be in the health care market at any time. So in essence you are already in the health care market. If you get hit by a car walking home tonight, you're in the market. You can't predict when that will happen. And if it does, you're going to be treated. If you don't have insurance, you got a free ride. Find me another product that is analogous.

How do you factor in the friends of Obamas who were given a waiver and not required under the mandate to be in the system?

I don't think the government regulates through the FDA like you are thinking, depeche -- sure they won't let poisonous food on the market, but where do you draw the line when its poisonous food versus food that, if eaten in excess, can lead to a litany of health problems down the round? I understand that there is a large portion of the population on government run health insurance currently (which is a whole other subject in terms of the ability of the governmental bureaucracy to monitor and eliminate fraud in the Medicare program) -- but that's a far cry from a universal program where every single person in the country is covered. I mean if the justification if economic in nature, then doesn't the government then have the right to issue regulations in terms of managing the health insurance program? What's to stop the government then from extending that authority?

Imagine how large of a monster bureaucracy Medicare is right now and all the problems with it -- costs running out of control, fraud, waste, corruption, etc. Do we really want to expand that and let the government manage this? If the government becomes the health insurer, doesn't the government then have to create a panel of people who will determine whether or not a proposed treatment is medically necessary? Do we want government bureaucrats making those decisions?

A quick google search (your results may vary) shows Medicare and Medicaid, according to Kaiser, are used by approximately 100 million people, with that number sure to increase as the Baby Boomers age. And now we are going to expand the size and scope of that program threefold to cover the entire populace?

That seems like a mistake to me.

Instead you have insurance company bureaucrats making those decisions, whose charge it is to make more profit for their companies. Why is that better? I think if you look into it Medicare spends less pennies on the dollar on bureaucracy and administration than does private health insurance companies.

Instead you have insurance company bureaucrats making those decisions, whose charge it is to make more profit for their companies. Why is that better? I think if you look into it Medicare spends less pennies on the dollar on bureaucracy and administration than does private health insurance companies.

Thats bs and you know it. Health Insurance companies have to be profitable, the government can dip into other funds to make it look like they broke even. Thats just dumb.

Instead you have insurance company bureaucrats making those decisions, whose charge it is to make more profit for their companies. Why is that better? I think if you look into it Medicare spends less pennies on the dollar on bureaucracy and administration than does private health insurance companies.

At least with private insurance companies you have the potential for a suit for bad faith.... can't do that against the government, can you?

And, we already have a huge swath of the population in government-run health insurance - medicare. Has the government dictated diet or limited food choices? Seems like a red herring, and not the food choice.

No, they just ration care is all. Not to mention the increasing number of doctors dropping out of Medicare.

I would argue that everyone is using health care because at any given moment you could fall ill and be rushed to the hospital and the hospital will treat you. Just like you are using the police and fire department, etc. even if you never actually have a fire. They are there ready to help you at any given moment.

So, let's assume you are correct, and everyone "NEEDS" health care

Why does everyone need health insurance?

why do you guys conflate the two different industries, as if they are one in the same? How did people attain health care services, prior to the advent of so called "health" "insurance"?

Why does the government want you to believe, that in order to receive services from the health care industry, that one must first pass thru the economic toll booth built by the so called 'insurance' industry?

You want AFFORDABLE health care, cut out the middle men. If the government ought be doing anything here, it is forcing health care service providers to display their prices, and NOT allowing them to charge different rates to different customers (cash custy vs insurance company). Get rid of the employer health insurance deduction. 160+ Billion there, that serves no purpose to the common good.

Make HSA's more accessible. Use them as the medium to fund student loans. The fedgov already guarantees that student loan creditors will always always always get paid, so set up an "exchange" so to speak, where we can put our income pre-tax into an HSA, purchase catastrophic coverage, and even have those accounts bear interest, by using the monies to fund student loans

i'm sure you lawyer types can easily poke holes in that idea, but it sounds infinitely better then putting a gun to the back of my head and forcing me to pay Tony Soprano and his goons their exorbitant rates. The concept behind health insurance is pretty 'socialist' anyways, so who the hell would miss that, it's not very reasonable and the cost and waste involved make it something we could live without

Sure it is, bowl. The problem is that the ambulance companies have to respond to every call regardless of ability to pay. So as a result, they charge everyone an arm and a leg, and if they get payment from some of them, they end up doing OK for themselves. That's part of the problem (uncontrolled costs) that results from some people not having health insurance.

This has nothing to do with the delivery of healthcare. It is all about control of the individual by the state. I will promise you the US government will not be able to deliver quality healthcare under Obamacare. We will lose thousands of physicians and surgeons under this regressive bill. How do you provide quality healthcare with no one to give it in a timely manner? It is truly a shame that the Speaker of the House at the time of passing the bill had the audacity to say "We have to pass it to see what is in it."

The 2nd issue I have is why hasn't Kagen recused herself from this. She had huge influence on passing the legislation. That is basically a joke in itself,

Personally I hope this is struck down. Why does it take 2,000 plus pages of a bill to force people to buy health insurance?

Single payer is the way to go and it's constitutional. If they strike this down the dems need to get to work on single payer. If the Republicans want the "more constitutional" way of addressing the problem, then they can have it.

you assume the dems want single payer

you seem to forget who it was that struck down single payer in this current go round that eventually led to what obamacare is now

or am i just dreaming that it was nancy pelosi that squashed it after taking in huge donations from the health insurance lobbys?

why do you guys conflate the two different industries, as if they are one in the same? How did people attain health care services, prior to the advent of so called "health" "insurance"?

Why does the government want you to believe, that in order to receive services from the health care industry, that one must first pass thru the economic toll booth built by the so called 'insurance' industry?

You want AFFORDABLE health care, cut out the middle men. If the government ought be doing anything here, it is forcing health care service providers to display their prices, and NOT allowing them to charge different rates to different customers (cash custy vs insurance company). Get rid of the employer health insurance deduction. 160+ Billion there, that serves no purpose to the common good.

Make HSA's more accessible. Use them as the medium to fund student loans. The fedgov already guarantees that student loan creditors will always always always get paid, so set up an "exchange" so to speak, where we can put our income pre-tax into an HSA, purchase catastrophic coverage, and even have those accounts bear interest, by using the monies to fund student loans

i'm sure you lawyer types can easily poke holes in that idea, but it sounds infinitely better then putting a gun to the back of my head and forcing me to pay Tony Soprano and his goons their exorbitant rates. The concept behind health insurance is pretty 'socialist' anyways, so who the hell would miss that, it's not very reasonable and the cost and waste involved make it something we could live without

we all know politicians will say whatever they have to, in order to get elected. So i got to thinking, assuming we are gearing up for Romney vs Obama (if for no other reason than that they are spending the most money, because presidential elections are always given to the biggest spender)

will Romney be pushing Romney care for America, once he is selected as the Repuke nominee? I don't watch tv or too much of any political media, but in the debate or two i watched, Romney seems content playing smart and quiet. We've watched all the others blabber their way to insignificance. Silence is a virtue, and Rmoney knows there is value to not offering up information that doesn't need to be offered up

So let's say the Supreme court sends this bill back to the drawing boards, and shortly after, Rmoney is announced as the nominee for the election that is now seven months away. Things change once the mud sling boils down to D vs R, and without a doubt, this will be a dirty run to November. It sounds so wacked that it is plausible, that Rmoney runs on a platform of Romney care,,,,,,,

we all know politicians will say whatever they have to, in order to get elected. So i got to thinking, assuming we are gearing up for Romney vs Obama (if for no other reason than that they are spending the most money, because presidential elections are always given to the biggest spender)

will Romney be pushing Romney care for America, once he is selected as the Repuke nominee? I don't watch tv or too much of any political media, but in the debate or two i watched, Romney seems content playing smart and quiet. We've watched all the others blabber their way to insignificance. Silence is a virtue, and Rmoney knows there is value to not offering up information that doesn't need to be offered up

So let's say the Supreme court sends this bill back to the drawing boards, and shortly after, Rmoney is announced as the nominee for the election that is now seven months away. Things change once the mud sling boils down to D vs R, and without a doubt, this will be a dirty run to November. It sounds so wacked that it is plausible, that Rmoney runs on a platform of Romney care,,,,,,,

or maybe i'm stoned as a kite.

Actually, I believe on Leno the other night, Romney said his plan is simply to give the states lattitude to address the problem however they see fit.

Activities offered by advertising links to other sites may be deemed an illegal activity in certain jurisdictions. Viewers are specifically warned that they should inquire into the legality of participating in any games and/or activities offered by such other sites. The owner of this website assumes no responsibility for the actions by and makes no representation or endorsement of any of these games and/or activities offered by the advertiser. As a condition of viewing this website viewers agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from the viewer’s participation in any of the games and/or activities offered by the advertiser.